starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
User talk:Kiljaedenas
Re: Analysis If you mean the "tactical analysis" designation, it's removed because it isn't needed - the writing by itself is analysis. If you mean the word count, it's compressing it/reducing fluff (less is more), but otherwise the info is still there. The only one that was outright removed was the drone/extractor section as it's very arbitrary to declare one trait inherantly superior to another.--Hawki (talk) 05:25, February 19, 2015 (UTC) I moved the HotS page for a reason - it's inherently subjective, and it's not the wiki's place to make arbitrary distinctions on what's the best strategy to use. It's the player's perogative to look at individual pages and make their own conclusions. It becomes redundant to make an analysis page when every player is going to have their own individual analysis of what's the best way to move forward.--Hawki (talk) 22:49, February 19, 2015 (UTC) What other wikis may or may not do is academic. In my own experience, other wikis do the opposite of what you've described - it's one thing to give information on a pre-existing page, but to create a separate page for said properties is very dubious. But to answer your question: *Your page breaks the nouns policy, as you've treated units as proper rather than common nouns. It doesn't help that the writing style is informal and unprofessional (e.g. repeated use of second person). *There is no provision for this in the unit gameplay policy - the main divide is between lore and gameplay, and that's further subdivided by game if there is sufficient information. No current policy exists for a subsequent level of subdivision. Articles like dancing have a precedent to exist in that they can cover more than one unit. Yours is simply regurgitating information that, if applied, would be applied onto pre-existing unit articles. *Your article is also covered by the fan content policy, which states that fan material is best left grouped. This applies to unit articles as well - fans writing information on unit properties is acceptable. Separating that information is in breach of this policy. *Your article is in breach of the strategy policy, which stresses simplicity. Your article goes into full assertion mode, and that level of assertion would require referencing. You have failed to provide any referencing that your conclusions are indeed correct. So yes. Elements of your article can be included into unit articles, provided they fit in with the tone/style. But I and/or other admins would need convincing as to why your article needs to exist separately.--Hawki (talk) 05:47, February 20, 2015 (UTC) *Having it separated into a single article would be more irritating for users, since we're separating info that should be readily available on the units' own pages. If a user goes to a page on, say, the raptor, then they should be able to find everything there is to say on the raptor without having to visit a separate page. The only exception to this was the gameplay divide we utilized because of a) the volume of information, and b) that SC1 gameplay is academic to SC2 gameplay, and even that was only settled after long debate. As the raptor will only ever appear in one campaign of one game, there's not nearly enough precedent or info to warrant info separation. *Again, what other wikis may or may not do is academic. And if we're playing the wiki card, I've just come from the Destiny wiki where a user's been doing exactly what you've been doing, and other users have been crying foul, leaving me to sort it out. *That the opinions are subjective is part of the problem, and made all the more so that they're being linked from a factual article. It's not only the removal of neutrality and factual provision of information (a wiki's mandate), but if a user comes along and disagrees with your conclusions, then we've got a nightmare. This applies to me as much as you. Terrans are the easiest race to play for me, doesn't mean I've ever considered making an article how and why that's the case. *As a public wiki, by its nature, formality is expected. Same as with any other wiki. A wiki, first and foremost, is a provider of information. *I made the dancing link to show the difference. Dancing is a tactic with general applications. Your article is not - it is information that has no reason to exist separately from the units it's describing. That, and the dancing article not arbitrarily declaring the tactic to be inherantly superior/inferior to anything else, but merely providing the facts. *By grouping it into one page, you're separating information from their host unit articles. "Separating information," as in, making it harder to find. The only time separation is ever employed on the site is between lore and gameplay. Everything on the article stems from a pre-existing page, so yes, it is separating the information. *Making arbitrary declarations about units being superior to others is very specific, so yes, the "magic box technique" analogy applies. *We have an article for every mission of HotS, an article for every unit of HotS, and a page for Kerrigan's abilities and the evolution pit. I think that's enough for people to be informed. *I'd expect the info to go where it already is - on the unit pages. It's why I moved the article rather than deleted it, because the info itself is potentially useful, provided it's applied correctly and without bias. If a unit wants to know about raptors and swarmlings, they can easily look at the two pages, and make their own decision. As the mandate of a wiki is to provide factual information (bar fanfic wikis or whatnot), then we're fullfilling our purpose - give the info, let the user decide. It is not a wiki's perogative to take a stance on issues such as this. *Psi's mentioned the possibility of strategy articles. I'm fine with those, provided that they actually have a reason to exist. For instance, a "siege" article could work, as sieging can cover multiple units of multiple races. Something like "siege tank tactics" however is redundant, because it has no reason to exist separately from its unit page.--Hawki (talk) 21:38, February 20, 2015 (UTC) "You mentioned that you may want my assistance with writing one (tactics policies); I'm definitely open to this. How would you like to proceed?" I've done very little contribution to the wiki in the last year, due to a new job sucking up a ton of time. At least it pays better :) I started with a forum post here: Forum:Strategy_policy_updates. I suppose we could do one for "fan content" too, but the issue here was NPoV on strategy articles, so I'm not sure we need to update the fan content policy. But if you have ideas for that please create a forum article on that too. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 16:00, February 22, 2015 (UTC)